2009 (1) TMI 412 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment under section 260A delay in filing appeal held- that in Ornate Traders P. Ltd. v ITO 2008 (8) TMI 282 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT certain direction were issued to the department to ensure filing of appeals with in time in future and to fix the responsibility of the defaulting officers as the appeals cannot be permitted to become time barred as a matter of routine since it involved the question of government revenue. In this case the appeal had become barred by time still it took more than one year for the Department to file these appeals. This inordinate delay in filing the appeals remained unexplained. The delay could not be condoned.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals
2. Adequacy of affidavits submitted for condonation
3. Responsibility and accountability of the Department

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The core issue in the judgment revolves around the condonation of delay ranging from 411 to 883 days in filing Interest-tax Appeal No. 10 of 2007 and various Income-tax Appeals. The court scrutinized the reasons provided by the Department for these delays and found them insufficient. The affidavits submitted failed to explain the delay adequately, and the court emphasized that a definite right had accrued in favor of the non-applicant, which could not be taken away due to vague averments.

2. Adequacy of Affidavits Submitted for Condonation:
In Notices of Motion Nos. 3926, 3928, 3931, 3932, 3933, 3936, and 3937 of 2008, the affidavits were almost identical and did not provide a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The affidavits lacked details on steps taken during the intervening periods, and the court noted that no action was taken for months, reflecting a callous approach. Similarly, in Notices of Motion Nos. 4051, 4054, and 4056 of 2008, the affidavits were vague and did not justify the delay of 450 days. The affidavits failed to explain what steps were taken even after the officer joined the concerned branch and found a backlog.

3. Responsibility and Accountability of the Department:
The court highlighted the need for the Department to act expeditiously and with due care. It criticized the Department's casual and negligent attitude, emphasizing that the law of limitation is based on public policy and helps in the effective administration of justice. The court referred to a recent judgment (Ornate Traders P. Ltd. v. ITO) where similar delays were not condoned due to lack of proper explanation. The court reiterated that public officers have a duty to act judiciously, fairly, and expeditiously, and the Department's failure to do so resulted in the appeals becoming time-barred.

The court also noted that despite previous directions to the Department to ensure timely filing of appeals and fix the responsibility of defaulting officers, no care was taken to comply with these directions. The affidavits did not mention any steps taken to hold the erring officers accountable. The court emphasized that the principle of public accountability makes the concerned officers responsible for such omissions.

Conclusion:
The court concluded by declining to condone the inordinate delays in filing the appeals, dismissing all the notices of motion. Consequently, the appeals did not survive for consideration and were also dismissed. The court expressed hope that the Department would look into the matter properly and ensure timely filing of appeals in the future. No order as to costs was made.